Training of Veterinary Students in Trans Rectal Palpation of Equids: A Comparison of Live Versus Cadaver Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transrectal palpation (TP) is a basic skill in equine practice. Traditional TP learning methods include instructor-assisted TP in live animals, but this approach presents animal welfare concerns, especially when it needs to be used with large numbers of students. The main objective of this study is to compare two learning methods of TP: traditional methodology with live horses (LH) and alternative methodology using a cadaver with its flanks dissected (CDV). Twenty students with no previous equine TP experience were randomly assigned to two groups: LH ( n = 10) and CDV ( n = 10). Both groups received initial theoretical training before the LH or CDV session. Learning outcomes of both groups were assessed in a new TP session with live horses. All students were asked about their success in palpating seven intra-abdominal structures and objective ultrasound confirmation (UC) was also performed. Successful perception in palpation and by UC was similar in both LH and CDV students’ groups, without significant differences. Anonymous surveys answered by these 20 volunteers and by 126 students enrolled in the regulated course who also received this CDV training showed very positive feedback on the CDV methodology. As a limitation of the study, there were few students in each group and most of the results are based on subjective criteria. Nevertheless, we can conclude that CDV is a useful tool for teaching TP, with good learning results, allowing the instructor to see what the student is touching and avoiding the LH disadvantages. This translation was provided by the authors. To view the original article visit: https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme-2023-0010-es
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".